Is it Contrast? What is wrong with my old uncoated lenses?

[michaelorr]

I have a Wollensak 159mm wide angle lens for 8x10. I also have a Wollensak Series V lens on a whole plate camera.
I have exposed films with these lenses on 8x10 and 5x7, and compared with exposures taken with a zeiss jena 165mm lens taken on 4x5. about the same f/ on each.
Developed basically the same, i do not understand why the two Wolly lenses have such poor results, in contrast, when compared to the zeiss. I mean, really big difference.
I had aimed to see if the whole plate camera with 5x7 film adapter was registering the same focal plane as the camera was built for with plates. So, i really aimed to see how in focus the image was. While the image was a bit low in resolution compared, maybe a bit "soft", still seemed mostly in focus. My biggest disappointment was in how flat the negatives were with both wolly's compared.

Am i supposed to compensate in developing, or some other adjustment known to use these lenses? And if so, why is the zeiss so much better, also an uncoated lens?

all my other photos are taken with typical multi-coated modern lenses. No surprises there. i just have to believe these older lenses have produced masterful images. even Matthew Brady's stuff was better than i am getting!

>michael

 

[summicron1]

Zeiss made a hell of a lens, I guess. Are the wollensacks anastigmats? Age may also be a factor, perhaps real old designs?

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The Wollensacks may be uncoated. The company went out of business in 1972. You can look up the year of manufacture from the serial number of the lens. Lenses made before WWII are uncoated. Lens flare will reduce contrast. Are you using a lens hood? This will help quite a bit. You can't compare things with Brady as he was using contrasty wet plates. They were sensitive to only blue light.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Reasons:

• lens design
• glass
• in lens designs that old lenses were not coated.

Remember nothing beats a good piece of glass

 

[michaelorr]

The plate camera lens was anastigmat, don't have the wide angle close at hand to check it.Wolly's are pre-war. The zeiss is post-war Jena but still uncoated, very clear-looking glass by the way. A tessar design. Lens flare, sun was behind me, and i do shade with the dark slide, but no hood. That was the plate camera. the wide angle was taken is overcast day that already was bland with a bland subject, somewhat low SBR, but the zeiss put out a very nice negative with normal development. I guess i am wondering if it is the norm to expect the negative to look as it does, and experience dictates a printing regimen that makes up for the lens. Especially that WA lens - it must have produced great negatives and still should do. I have not tried to print one of these, as i have not gotten printing down to acceptable results yet with my modern lens negatives yet. So i may just keep taking the WA photos i need and have confidence that i will be able to get a good print from them. I have a rapid rectilinear on my old Korona 4x5 that has similar image as the two wolly's.

 

[shutterfinger]

My question is what shutters are the lens in and have their speeds been tested recently?
The Extreme Wide Angle is listed in the 1903 catalog as available in barrel only and is in a Betax shutter by the 1920's.
Several Wollensak catalogs at http://www.cameraeccentric.com/info.html

 

[Ian Grant]

The Wollensacks may be uncoated. The company went out of business in 1972. You can look up the year of manufacture from the serial number of the lens. Lenses made before WWII are uncoated. Lens flare will reduce contrast. Are you using a lens hood? This will help quite a bit. You can't compare things with Brady as he was using contrasty wet plates. They were sensitive to only blue light.

The coated Wollensak lenses have a symbol which is a C with a W in the center.

I'm surprised the OP's post WWII CZJ Tessar isn't coated but even uncoated Tessars are usually quite contrasty. However I have seen lenses that are soft and flat, particularly Tessrs and Novars made in the 1930's when Schott brought out new optical glasses, the glass was prone to atmospheric attack from some poluttants. I've a Novar that's useless despite looking very clean, no scratches etc, the Leitz Summar used the same glass.

I have 2 (159mm) uncoated Wollensak Ex.W.A lenses and can confirm they aren't as contrasty as my Tesssars or coated 3¼" Raptar Wide Angle, however they have the advantage of size compared to my 165mm f8 Super Angulon.

Ian

 

[mdarnton]

Generally, if it's a Raptar it's post-war and coated; Velostigmats are the same thing, pre-war, uncoated. If it's uncoated, it's really important that it be absolutely clean. Shine a flashlight through the back to the front, at an angle, and it should be totally clear. Any fogging at all will destroy contrast. They're not that hard to totally disassemble to clean, but make sure you get it back together right--no flipped elements!

A clean uncoated lens is a real thing of beauty to look through.

 

[gone]

Yes, an uncoated lens needs to be perfectly clean. I had a Summar on an old Leica that gave unusable, dreamy, low contrast shots w/ tons of flare. Had it cleaned, and wow, totally different lens. I would also think that if you want more contrast, use a yellow filter if outside, make sure there's good light to use it with, and probably change to a more contrastier film and developing protocol. You're going to have to experiment to get what you want w/ uncoated glass, but it's worth it once you have it dialed in. It also could be you just have a dud of a lens. It happens.

I accidentally flipped an element in a 35mm camera once, and the images were very interesting!

 

[jimgalli]

Some of the wide angle Wollensak lenses, if it is the f9.5 version, were 8 glasses in 4 groups. Uncoated this would equal 8 air-glass interfaces where you would lose 4% of image light each. That's 30% of your light entering that lens that isn't making an image. Some images are OK for that like interiors, but others, you really see the haze.

I don't know what the Series V is. ?? Conley? F no. It may be a dialyt. 4 glass 4 group which would suffer the same fate uncoated.

 

[MDR]

The series V Wollensak Series V (I am not even sure that it is a tessar clone more likely a Triplet) was the Budget lens the Carl Zeiss lenses were not furthermore the Series V is a good 20 years older than your Tessar. If you want more contrast add some 10 to 15% to the development time this is often necessary with older lenses. The Tessar should have a single coating.

 

[Ian Grant]

The series V Wollensak Series V (I am not even sure that it is a tessar clone more likely a Triplet) was the Budget lens the Carl Zeiss lenses were not furthermore the Series V is a good 20 years older than your Tessar. If you want more contrast add some 10 to 15% to the development time this is often necessary with older lenses. The Tessar should have a single coating.

There's something wrong here. Can you re-write this please.

IAn

 

[michaelorr]

I looked at the anastigmat. It is 13 In. f7.5 Yes it does seem to be a bit dirty, so maybe i can take apart and clean the surfaces. It sort of looks like the accumulation like happens to the front glass in the car, from the gassing off of the plastic in the dashboard.
The front cell does have 4 air-glass interfaces. Didn't look carefully at the rear.

Solution for eyeglasses and microcloth should do ok right?

Ian, i suspect that my WA is the same as yours - f9.5 sounds about right as Jim points out. It is a very small lens, so flat that i cannot even get a lens cap to gain purchase around the front lens. I assume that is so there is no vignetting since it is so WA.

The shutters are very old. And recently i have made the exposures on cold days, which isn't helping the speed. So, it is likely that the exposure was too long. Thanks for the reminder. And, a couple nights ago, i developed the photo i took with the WA at about N+2, thinking maybe it would pump the contrast up. I rather think i overcooked it. Well, if it did pump the contrast, and if the film were already overexposed, there certainly is no seeing that contrast now. The negative is almost opaque!

What i am getting out of your responses is: 1) clean the lens 2) My negatives really should not look the same as the ones i take with modern lenses, so don't assume the lens is not giving good results until i get the feel for the lens. 3) It should be possible to find the right 'dialed in' when using this lens and it will give good results. 4) Be mindful of the exposure times with the old shutter, and 5) Change developers and add some development time to pump up contrast. I do have DDX, but usually develop in perceptol, which isn't helping the contrast.

I have not tried to print any of the negatives, i should give that a try and see how it comes out. When the temp goes back up a bit i will start looking at the dialing in and learn how to use that WA as meant. Make some negatives and make some test prints.

Very greatly appreciated, all your help here, everyone!

Incidentally, since it was mentioned by mdarnton, the CJZ glass is a really gorgeous to just look at, not even looking through. Like fine crystal is just so pure looking. Nothing like the other lenses i have looked at. I have no idea if it is coated, i didn't think so it was so clear looking. I actually have two of them a 150mm and a 165mm.

 

[Maris]

I have two uncoated 159mm f9.5 Wollies and both of them arrived in my possession with subtle HAZE between the lens elements. Disassembled and cleaned the glass ended up crystal clear. With only four glass elements lens flare leading to reduced contrast is not a problem if direct sunlight is kept off the front element. And stopping down a lot helps sharpness and image "snap". I use f32 and occasionally f45 for most landscapes. Since the negatives are used only for contact work image diffraction is not an issue at these stops.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Solution for eyeglasses and microcloth should do ok right?

Only if you want to smear shit everywhere and possible scratch it by rubbing grit around.
Use a blower, then a Lenspen (as recommended by me, and some guys who happen to clean thousands of lenses a year).

 

[shutterfinger]

Only if you want to smear shit everywhere and possible scratch it by rubbing grit around.

Well, if you did not wipe the grease off the grill after cooking some hamburgers the use the same cloth to wipe down the kitty's liter box then use it to clean your lens without washing it you would not have that problem.

I have several heavyweight microfiber lens cleaning cloths from Adorama. The best brand is Microdear. Some of the ones are marked Pro Optics but the small tag says Microdear. I think the Adorama brand heavyweight cloths are made by Microdear. It is the only brand I use. The thin lightweight cloths are junk. Always use a clean cloth and if you cannot remember don't. Wash with a regular load of cotton type clothes with no fabric softener and air dry.
The only reason not to use them in a commercial setting is controlling the usage to ensure a clean cloth section is used. I have had scratches with cleaning tissues used properly also. Many times fine scratches are hidden by the haze and the cleaning cloth and technique are blamed for pre existing damage.

I use the microfiber cloths aimed at eyeglass cleaning to wrap lens cells only.

Clean carefully with clean medium. I have encountered old lens that had a heavy haze and nothing but my breath and a Microdear cloth would phase it. Your experience may be different.

 

[michaelorr]

i am placing an order for film with Adorama this weekend, so i will get the supplies mentioned for cleaning.
I looked at the glass, it has some of the clear crystal look to it that the CZJ has, pretty clean so won't be too much to improve there.
My ExWA is 159mm f12.5, not the ones that you all have mentioned. But i don't use it except at f32. should be ok. I do have a challenge focusing due to the light.
So, i will probably -
1. Develop all films i take with this lens in DDX not perceptol
2. Expose about a dozen films with this lens and play around with dilutions and push (try to "dial-in")
3. Try doing some printing next to see how really bad or not so bad it is. I don't have enough experience in judging a negative. I only know it looks so much different than the ones from the CZJ lens
4. Need to take the photos when it is a bit warmer out - i really don't know what the exposure time is, shutter a bit slower in the cold temps

Not that these will prove anything, since they are pics of the neg on a light box and pretty poor - but here is the negative and a reversal, unadjusted.

Thanks all for the helpful input!

 

[Ronald Moravec]

Shine a light thru the Wally. Dirt, haze, separation may be the culprit. It should look perfectly clear with a pen light.

 

[shutterfinger]

4 years ago I expanded on a DIY shutter speed tester using the sound card in your computer. http://photo.net/large-format-photography-forum/0044cW?start=10 The next to last post is the most current version of this tester. Its easy to build and accurate.
I think your negative is 1 to 2 stops over exposed. I learned years ago to expose/develop so that the negative printed well at paper black. Paper black is how long of an exposure your printing paper needs to be exposed by the enlarger through a film base + fog piece of the film you are using. If shadows have no detail, increase exposure; if highlights cannot be burned in in a reasonable time decrease development. Exposure increases adjustments should be in 1/3 to 1/2 stop increments; development adjustments should be in 5% increments.

 

[shutterfinger]

I downloaded the negative you posted in post 17. This is the Levels box in CS5

0 is pure black, 255 is pure white. Your deepest blacks start at 42 if the left slider is moved to the right until it is at the edge of the increase above the base line. Deepest blacks normally fall between 0 and 25.
There is still information at 255. Highlights should be back to the base line by 255, above the base line is over development. The over development is likely due to the over exposure.
It has been 10 to 12 years since I serviced a Betax shutter. They are fairly simple and work mostly off spring tension.

 

[michaelorr]

shutterefinger, thanks for both these posts. i would like to build up that shutter tester and see how far off the shutter is, when at room temp and when it is below 40F. The day i took this photo is sounded to me like it had appreciable lag in it. Just calculating, there are almost 24 to25 levels of gradation in the photo shop, for each zone. If my blacks start at 42 and the highlights reach 255, then there is full range of contrast, which is not how the negative looks to me, so that is the good news - it should print ok. Then the only real problem with my negative is how much blocking up was caused by the over-exposure. And i know i compounded that by overdeveloping, thinking i could overcome what i thought was a lens that wouldn't deliver. Appreciate you analyzing the image file and pointing these out.

 

[shutterfinger]

If my blacks start at 42 and the highlights reach 255, then there is full range of contrast,

Incorrect. Proper exposures/development start between 0 and 15 and exposure/development that starts at 25 can be adjusted to look good. The real problem here is the tonal range is compressed so that black is at mid dark gray, mid dark gray is at mid gray to mid light gray, mid light gray at light gray to very light gray, very light gray and white at white with little or no distinction between them.

I think the sample is 2 stops over exposed based on where the blacks start. It may be 2 1/2 stops over. Lets look at the Curves box from CS5 for the sample negative

The graduation line at the bottom goes from Black on the left to White on the right. The majority of your images information falls between middle dark gray and middle light gray (3rd box on left side to 3rd box from right on the right side) a 4 box range. A good exposure will have a 7 to 8 box range. The height is the amount of information in the negative at that position. With the scan open in PS with the Curves adjustment open clicking on a tone in the scan will produce a circle on the curves graph so you can see where that tone is. The indicator is only momentary.
You perceive this as low contrast but its the tones compressed into a narrow range. The lighter tones are somewhat expanded.

 

[michaelorr]

So do you think it would have been improved if the exposure had been less (shutter speed) and keep some amount of overdevelopment? The roof of this barn is actually white lacquered tin. It could be flare? All that straight on reflected light from the roof and the building front which was fairly light as well bleached wood.

 

[shutterfinger]

Decreased exposure with no over development. The shadows on the building are at mid gray to upper mid gray, the sides of the building are washed out. The shadows on the building should be mid dark gray and there should be lots of texture in the side of the building.
The ten steps of the curves graph from left to right are black, deep dark gray, dark gray, medium dark gray, lower mid gray, mid gray, upper mid gray, lower light gray, light gray, upper light gray, white. Black and white should have no detail, all other sections should have varying degrees of detail.

 

[shutterfinger]

I just realized looking at the negative the values are reversed. I reversed everything. The negative is severely under exposed and no amount of over development will make up for the lack of sufficient exposure to render detail in the negative.
The curves graph for the inverted image is

The dark grass is at the far right, black, with the sky, side of the building and roof in the last 1 1/2 squares of the graph which is at light gray to upper light gray.
The shutter is running fast or firing at a constant speed and not operating the delay timer.

Sorry for the confusion.